Good.

Does this count as the "one more inch" that will start his killing spree?

If I were his mailman (you know, evil federal employee), I think I'd skip his street.

I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.

I don't think you'll find many pro-gun people on fark who have a problem with this.

Good. Keep the guns out of the hands of nutjobs.

This is a 2nd Amendment solution: Nutjob was "Well Regulated" right out of his guns.

He should be happy. The 2nd Amendment at work right here. He's a huge fan. Maybe he shows emotion differently than some because he joy seems a lot like anger and endless butthurt too me.

This is a fine example of existing legislation getting the job done.

BronyMedic: So, uh. What are you home defending with a 30 round magazine? Or Hunting? You got that many coyotes and varmints on your lawn? Didn't Call of Medal: Duty Warfare teach you that hip firing was a bad thing? Defend to me the need for civilians to own a high capacity magazine who's only legitimate use is to reduce the need to reload during firefights?

Why?  I agree with a ban on high capacity magazines.

The only animal I've shot in the past year was a mouse and that was with a pellet pistol that didn't have any ammo in it.  Why?  Because he came out of a vent and sat down while I was putting a new C02 cartridge in, and between stepping on him or shooting him with a blast of air, I went with the option that had as little contact as possible.  I'm terrified of mice, which is a source of endless amusement for my wife.  It had the desired effect.  I live on a retired farm and there are mice everywhere.  You can't let them go - it's like asking for trouble later.  I have no problem with people, but mice are the enemy, and they must be stopped.  Fortunately, poison and traps are effective and are my preferred method of elimination.

I don't hunt.  I don't collect guns.  The picture I posted is a pellet rifle.  I have a .22 Henry lever action rifle that hasn't ever fired on anything more dangerous than an aluminum can or a paper target.  I don't own any handguns, but I've fired a few at the local range.  I'm living in the middle of nowhere and people come on my property all the time (usually hunters) with guns and I don't feel I need an arsenal at home to protect myself.  Quite honestly, I'm not really a gun advocate.  I understand how they work, and what the differences are, and I'll fire my friend's guns at the range.  That's about it.  I don't want a handgun in the house because I don't see the point - I'd keep it unloaded and locked in a safe anyway.

But I can't abide stupidity, and that's what most of this debate is about.  Semiautomatic handguns kill more people in a week than "assault rifles" kill in a year.  In terms of human damage, this:



is more dangerous than this:



So I feel the debate has gone off the rails, because no one is really interested in reducing gun violence.  If they were, they'd ban handguns, which are easily concealable, easy to carry into situations where your judgement is likely to be compromised, and easy to fire repeatedly.  You can't wander all day with a rifle in your backpack, but you sure as shiat can carry a pistol.  I find the whole term "assault rifle" ridiculous because it has been defined by the press as anything that looks dangerous whether it really is or not.

I would like the gun show loophole closed permanently, I would like background checks to be more extensive, and I would like a nationwide licensing and registration system for gun ownership.  Our gun problem isn't with responsible gun owners, it's with criminals getting their hands on guns.  Closing the gun show loophole will take care of part of that, and registration will take care of the rest.  I believe that the registered database should be government and citizen controlled but private (not open to FOIA requests), and that registered gun owners should be allowed to buy whatever the fark they want in exchange. For existing guns, if they aren't registered, I think it should be a federal misdemeanor that can be wiped once the guns are registered.  It will narrow down the pool of weapons that are untraceable and aid in closing the gun show loophole.

I believe these are reasonable requests.  I also believe that if Timmy from down the street is a responsible gun nut, then he should be allowed to buy weapons that he uses responsibly.  Even the scary ones.

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

That was a silly thing to post and you are a silly poster for having posted it.

These gun control threads must really be driving the page views. I'd swear they're multiplying when we're not looking.

What a major, major douche bag.
"Stop sending me emails and calling me."
Somebody alert 4Chan.

But they let him keep his guns, he just has to promise not to carry them.  Psychopaths are known for their scrupulous honesty.

Well, they're after your guns, dawg, just like you predicted.

Better start that war with the government, needle dick!  Just try and make it last long enough for me to microwave some popcorn.  100 to ` says you don't make it.

SEE LIBS!! WE TOLD YOU SO!  THE GRABBING GUN GRABBERS ARE GRABBILY COMING TO GRAB YOUR GUNS!!

1776 WILL COMMENCE AGAIN!

I love how he made a new video telling people to quit "sending him legal advice."  The irony:  no competent lawyer would send a random internet person unsolicited legal advice.

born_yesterday: Is this ironic? I can never tell.

It is ironic when I think it is ironic.  At it isn't ironic when the other thinks it is ironic.  That is the general Fark rule.

The simple fact is that gun control laws as they stand now restrict law-abiding gun owners much more than they do violent criminals. There is no law you can create that will suddenly make violent criminals decide to stop being violent or using firearms illegally. All we can do is place greater penalties on those who do commit crimes with firearms, and work to remove firearms from the hands of criminals whenever possible.

Thought for the day: How about we stop putting people in prison for non-violent crimes like Marijuana possession, and start putting those who commit crimes with firearms there longer? I'm all for doubling the current penalties for anyone who uses a firearm in a crime, and/or giving Life without Parole to anyone who commits a violent crime with a firearm. Get these people off of the street, and at the same time stop filling the jails with non-violent drug offenders.

Loaded Six String: The weapon does not factor into whether a person is violent or not

Precisely why gun control is a stupid idea.

Thank you for finally putting this to bed.

doglover: This is a fine example of existing legislation getting the job done.

Indeed. Guy mouthed off and made threats to harm others, he shouldn't have a concealed handgun permit, it is as simple as that. I doubt it will stop this jagoff from carrying a firearm on his person, though (2ND AMENDMENT! I GOTS MAH RIGHTS!), and I hope there is a friendly neighborhood police officer who stops said jagoff for perfectly legitimate reasons, finds said concealed weapon on his person, and enforces still more existing legislation on him.

HaywoodJablonski: Seriously? This guy's video rant was a direct result of Obama (via Biden) threatening executive order to bring about gun control.

No, the guy's video rant was a direct result of being dropped on his head when he was three. Obama himself hasn't "threatened" to take away anyone's guns. The idea of Federal agents going around to everyone's home to collect their guns isn't even on the table.

Although I agree that Obama is the greatest troll President ever (with Clinton in second), I think this is one issue he's absolutely serious about.

joness0154: Consider our culture for a second....in the late 1800s nearly every adult male owned a firearm. I saw a statistic that showed nearly 50% of households today have a firearm of some sort.

With firearms being so ingrained in our culture, along with them being included as part of the Bill of Rights, it's no surprise to me.

I'm not so sure that every one of two households has a gun. Probably more like "99 of 100 households have no gun, but that 1 guy? He's got 50 guns in his collection."

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

A "consequence" is not a "curb or limit" on freedom of speech, first of all. A "curb or limit" would be something that stopped you from speaking in the first place. Secondly, the law does not say "Speak about something and have your guns taken away." What happened here is that a person spoke about using weapons in a way that made the state assess whether or not his use of them might be a threat to public safety and security--and then revoked not his right to SPEAK, but his right to continue to OWN AND USE WEAPONS. He can still run his mouth as much as he likes and nobody can stop him.

Free speech and your right to use it also doesn't mean what you seem to think it does either. It is the right to say what you wish free of government restraint on that speech--period. It does not mean that you can say anything you want and not have the potential effects of that speech evaluated, as happened here; or that you can say anything you want and not have restrictions placed on where, when and how you say it; or that you can say anything you want and expect to be free of social repercussions (which also happened here).

Free speech merely means the government cannot pass a law saying "It is illegal in and of itself to talk about X and here is the penalty for doing so." Dear Mr. Yeager cannot be sentenced to prison or even given a nominal fine for saying "Let's start a war!" He can't even have his guns taken away for saying it--but if the authorities feel that he presents a "clear and present danger" of using his guns in a threatening manner, then they can suspend his right to legally use guns for the greater good of society. Look up the decisions in Chemerinsky and Brandenburg if you have any doubts, and take a look at a state's "police powers".

Also, bear in mind this little factoid: The 1st only restrains GOVERNMENT action. All of us here cheering on this douchebag's punishment are private citizens. Your right to free speech is irrelevant between private parties. I absolutely have the right to tell another private person to STFU in a private situation; you HAVE NO RIGHTS that are enforceable between you and me as regards your right to "free speech". So if we want to applaud his idiot remarks landing him in hot water, well, that's not a restraint of his freedom of speech, nor is it our "acceptance of curbs on free speech." It's just our acknowledgement that actions have consequences, which apparently he didn't realize.

Amos Quito: I call bullshiat.

Call it what you want.  I don't really care.

Go ahead and take it to court.  Grab a handgun, go outside and threaten to shoot people.

When you get arrested, tell them you were exercising your 1st and 2nd Amendment rights.  See how long it takes before every lawyer in the world stops laughing.

I'll buy you a beer when you get out of prison.

Amos Quito: Lionel Mandrake: david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.


What should (s)he imagine it to be?

It's been covered, but, simply: The right to free speech is not absolute.  You cannot incite riots, you cannot libel or slander, you cannot harass or threaten.  This is not new.

Also, you do not have a right to carry a handgun, it is a privilege.  That is why they issue permits.

He had a privilege suspended (and he can appeal that decision).

He did not have a right suppressed.

Idiots like Yeager love to scream about their rights, but they really don't get the whole responsibility thing that goes along with that.

david_gaithersburg: So much for the First Amendment.

You mean, so much for what you imagine the First Amendment to be.

Koodz:
I'm not sure that being "CEO" of four guys running a shooting range and giving seminars to survivalists counts as rich, unless some other article has done some research on that.

If he IS rich (and Tennessee Rich is barely six figures) then I withdraw my statement.

Indeed, I may have read too much into the articles on CEO salaries and I assumed if this guy was getting attention, he must be important.  That seems incorrect.

I love a story with a happy ending.

So... Someone help me out here. Is this clown a "Good Guy With A Gun" or a "Bad Guy With A Gun"?

llachlan: Can I point out the cognitive dissonance I'm registering?

The posts on this thread expressing 'good' in response to his permit being revoked are happily accepting that those are legitimate consequences for the content of his 'speech'. And even though most of you misunderstand what free speech applies to, you rightly prize it.

So riddle me this: what leads people to accept curbs and limits on the 1st Amendment, but to freak out if anyone suggests limitations on the 2nd Amendment?

/btw, my response to the permit being revoked is: good.
// my second response is to turn the interwebs to a local Tennessee feed- I expect something bad will happen.
/// Good + Bad = x, solve for x

ALL amendments are not absolute.  A threat to shoot people is not protected by the 1st amendment.   The right to bear arms is not absolute , for example criminals and ex cons are not allowed to have them (Vary in state, of course)

propasaurus: I bet he considers himself a safe, sane, rational and responsible gun owner.

No, that would be the millions who are only starting to speak up now. It might take a while but the volume will get loud enough to be heard around the world.

Holy blap, being a raging, reactionary jackinape has consequences? Damn, that makes me feel better about the world on a not insignificant level.

Surprise! You threaten to shoot people, you get in trouble!